tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post9194955417394798349..comments2023-10-02T14:33:18.136+01:00Comments on The Very Fluffy Diary of Millennium Dome, Elephant: Day 4191: Time's Champions Teaser #2, by Daddy RichardMillennium Domehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-10690596361148716402012-07-03T10:07:01.784+01:002012-07-03T10:07:01.784+01:00I want to read your dissertation, Tat.I want to read your dissertation, Tat.Kate Ormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03097557871109030788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-8277456900380603212012-07-03T10:06:37.291+01:002012-07-03T10:06:37.291+01:00I want to read your dissertation, Tat.I want to read your dissertation, Tat.Kate Ormanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03097557871109030788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-22153199238257424542012-06-25T10:47:38.768+01:002012-06-25T10:47:38.768+01:00I read as far as:
"Well, I do seem to have t...I read as far as:<br /><br />"Well, I do seem to have touched a nerve."<br /><br />No, I did you the courtesy of replying to a comment that was offensive in its content and its language.<br /><br />But you seem desperate to pick a fight. Well, if that's your attitude, then I'm not going to bother reading any further. This is me walking away.<br /><br />Perhaps you will have something interesting and constructive to contribute on another subject, but as far as this one goes: stop now.Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-23328068981371496942012-06-24T14:09:42.482+01:002012-06-24T14:09:42.482+01:00Tat Wood, why did you feel the need to come in so ...Tat Wood, why did you feel the need to come in so heavily on this blog post? It was quite obviously an affectionate, personal tribute to the New Adventures. Yes, the claim that all Who fandom was in one accord over the books is worth unpicking and, at least, qualifying. On the other hand, the tone and form of your response were completely misjudged and disproportionate.Nick Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01618461043660129105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-2784172702270274262012-06-23T13:52:26.911+01:002012-06-23T13:52:26.911+01:00Curse this clumsy online malarky. Two lines went w...Curse this clumsy online malarky. Two lines went walkies. Behold:<br /><br /> “the fact is that they routinely sold upwards of ten-thousand copies.”<br /><br />Where did you get this number? Even Andrew Beech trying to talk up fandom to The Times only said 8000<br /><br /><br />And that's it. Sorry to act like the sulky teenager telling the kids that the department store Santa was some old git from the JobCentre.Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-84233816632804693422012-06-23T13:49:44.082+01:002012-06-23T13:49:44.082+01:00“And finally...
"No comment"
Do you ob...“And finally...<br /><br />"No comment"<br /><br />Do you object to "popular" or "deservedly" in regard to Big Finish?”<br /><br />Which part of “No Comment” don’t you get?Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-15673834879465600552012-06-23T13:49:08.157+01:002012-06-23T13:49:08.157+01:00“Yes, a tiny fraction of a TV audience, but vastly...“Yes, a tiny fraction of a TV audience, but vastly larger than any circle of acquaintances you may be claiming to speak for.”<br /><br />But it’s not just my circle of acquaintances that I consulted on this. See below.<br />“But then, when you say:<br /><br />"Nobody who was especially enthusiastic about Kate Orman would have been seen dead with a McIntee."<br /><br />...you just give away how small a circle you are basing your anecdotal evidence upon.”<br /><br />Actually, no: I thought like you to begin with (or the flipside, that I was the only person who didn’t really like either, despite people saying ‘… I know you don’t like them but THIS one’s good’) but then I landed up doing an MA Dissertation on the subject so I went to ManoptiCon and asked total strangers what they thought. This isn’t anecdata, this is the result of a questionnaire. And for the crucial year 1993 I was in Birmingham, far from the Tavern crowd. In a bookshop, talking to customers... <br /> Did you do this?<br />(Unlike Lawrence or, apparently, you, I don’t assume myself to be typical - of anything - so I go looking for external validation of my impressions. I find it as often as not and where there’s a difference I comment on that. The essay you cite as ’evidence’ that I map my gut onto the whole wide world is an example of me testing my hunch. So’s the other one).<br /><br />“. You have no power and no right to say that I did not feel drawn into a shared community by my experience of those books.” <br /><br />True. I wasn’t even trying to Just as you have no right to include me in the ‘Everyone’ who was ‘on board’ with these being the one and only truly original continuation of the TV series.<br /><br />“That is what the New Adventures mean to me.<br /><br />To quote a controversial Doctor: "whether you like it or not". “<br /><br />Good luck to you. I just never subscribed to the view that if you didn’t buy them you weren’t a ‘true’ fan. That’s the sort of sales-pitch they use for terrible artwork and Dapol models.Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-11571443370050980992012-06-23T13:48:25.792+01:002012-06-23T13:48:25.792+01:00Well, I do seem to have touched a nerve. Lucky I d...Well, I do seem to have touched a nerve. Lucky I didn’t resort to name-calling or ad hominem arguments. I wasn’t seeking to cause offence, just articulate why I felt offended.<br /><br />“ As the author of an essay titled "Was 1973 the Annus Mirabilis" you're not really in the best position to lecture anyone about "one-size-fits-all extrapolation from your own experience". “<br /><br />But I also wrote ‘Was 2006 The Annus Mirabilis?” and sent you a rough-draft. And as you recall, neither essay was an extrapolation from my experience but an examination of the stats and claims for and against by various parties. You did actually read this or are you just saying what you think will score points?<br /><br />“You've clearly missed the point that this is a personal account as flagged up by the title "What the New Adventures Mean to Us". “<br /><br /> <br />Yes, I’ll cop to that. But you did use a universal ‘we’. That way Parkin lies.<br /><br />“However, you are also wrong in fact. e.g. the DWM and the New Adventures for a long time did not contradict one another, with the magazine printing "Preludes" and the comic strip crossing over with NA stories. It even featured Benny .” <br /><br />But they killed Ace. And until 1995 there wasn’t a lot else they could have done, what with there not being enough to fill a monthly magazine.<br /><br />“ Equally the BBC did not "flog off a publicly-owned copyright" (with sub-Marxist subtext "the BBC privatised Doctor Who"). “<br /><br />A reading of the BBC’s own charter is hardly ‘sub-Marxist’. You sound like Tea Partizan who sees that Hitler called his party ‘National Socialists’ and concludes that all Socialists, including multi-millionaire playboy Baz Obama, are Nazis. A curious piece of invective even after last week’s weird post when you said Polly Toynbee ws a ‘Tory’ (and even more alarmingly that serial-patsy Clegg was ‘The most successful Liberal since Lloyd George’, but I promised not to argue politics with you after you went all Ipcress File).<br /><br />“ "Publicly-owned" is not the same as "free collective use", or perhaps you'd like to try treating a nuclear power station as a playground and see what happens.”<br /><br />Ooh! Ooh! Do I get to dress up as Andy Pandy?<br /><br />“ A similarly nasty surprise awaits you should you try to make use of "Doctor Who", "the TARDIS" or worst of all the Daleks, as the disclaimers all over your own published works loudly attest.”<br /><br />Even the BBC can’t use the Daleks without a note from their mum. As the increasingly unfortunately named Mad Norwegian is an American outfit, this is a different ball-game from if I, a licence-fee payer, refer to these things without making money. That’s how fanzines work.<br /> <br />“And you never had to pay for the New Adventures if you didn't want to; people who didn't want Doctor Who on the telly had no choice about paying for it through their licence fee. Which of those is actually more equitable?”<br /><br />The latter, obviously. Have you been inhaling next to Rupert Murdoch? These people who didn’t want Doctor Who did want some telly, and as the BBC engineers were in charge of maintaining the transmitters and training the technical staff who went to commercial stations it was infrastructure as much as what idiots now call ‘content’ that was being paid for.<br />(As we both know, Doctor Who was more than breaking even in its later years and so people who weren’t keen on paying for it weren’t actually paying for it: it was paying for ‘Tender Is The Night’. The delay in making Season 26 was because everyone saw it as a potential gold-mine, as did Virgin, and put in bids.)<br /><br />“Nor can you deny the fact that more new writers entered the series during the course of the New Adventures than at any other time in the series' history. That's a tremendous flowering of creativity.”<br /><br />Or lousy quality-control. Even by the standards of a series that employed Bob’n’Dave, Pip’n’Jane or Chibnall.Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-28325365656574733202012-06-23T13:46:36.235+01:002012-06-23T13:46:36.235+01:00On the advice of my NA-loving wife, I waited 24 ho...On the advice of my NA-loving wife, I waited 24 hours to cool off before replying to your replies. Here's what I wrote, now officially Dot-sanctioned:Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-9022159624801010632012-06-22T14:58:57.888+01:002012-06-22T14:58:57.888+01:00And finally...
"No comment"
Do you obj...And finally...<br /><br />"No comment"<br /><br />Do you object to "popular" or "deservedly" in regard to Big Finish? "Popular" is surely another indisputable fact – their output sells well enough to support several full-time salaries, on top of what they pay for their casts and writers. "Deservedly" then, depends whether you think that the reward of popularity is justified by the hard work put in by Jason, Gary, Nick and all their directors (Ken, Barnaby, Lisa etc), sound designers, writers and of course actors to produce something creative for the enjoyment of people pretty much like you and me. You're not obliged to like the output, but don't knock the input.Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-52739117044528756612012-06-22T14:58:33.899+01:002012-06-22T14:58:33.899+01:00(...cont)
You are, of course, one of those peopl...(...cont)<br /><br /><br />You are, of course, one of those people who dismiss the New Adventures as "spinoffery". Yet, I would say that for almost all of the televised run, many of the people producing Doctor Who did it only because the BBC told them to, or "for the money". Whereas, most people writing New Adventures did it first and foremost because they passionately wanted to write Doctor Who. I find the latter far more laudable. <br /><br />Nor can you deny the fact that more new writers entered the series during the course of the New Adventures than at any other time in the series' history. That's a tremendous flowering of creativity.<br /><br />You may not yourself know many people who read the New Adventures (except, bizarrely, as "market research") but, again, the fact is that they routinely sold upwards of ten-thousand copies. Yes, a tiny fraction of a TV audience, but vastly larger than any circle of acquaintances you may be claiming to speak for.<br /><br />But then, when you say:<br /><br />"Nobody who was especially enthusiastic about Kate Orman would have been seen dead with a McIntee."<br /><br />...you just give away how small a circle you are basing your anecdotal evidence upon.<br /><br />(I'm sure <i>we</i> will be lighting on both "The Left-Handed Hummingbird" <i>and</i> "First Frontier" as high points of the range, and probably calling both "Sanctuary" <i>and</i> "The Room With No Doors" classics.)<br /><br />I'm not going to deny there were differences between factions in fandom – Alex's piece more than mine touches on the Rad v Trad, Frock v Gun debates – but that does not mean they didn't all come together in the Fitzroy Tavern to argue it out. Or to punch Paul Cornell on the nose. I know you know this, because you were there.<br /><br />Now, I've no idea if you didn't feel part of a fan community in the New Adventures era, but if you felt left out and alone, then I'm sorry for you. But that's <i>your</i> experience. You have no power and no right to say that I did not feel drawn into a shared community by <i>my</i> experience of those books.<br /><br />That <b>is</b> what the New Adventures mean to me.<br /><br />To quote a controversial Doctor: "whether you like it or not".Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-29382852373858375282012-06-22T14:58:10.677+01:002012-06-22T14:58:10.677+01:00Tat,
As the author of an essay titled "Was 1...Tat,<br /><br />As the author of an essay titled "Was 1973 the Annus Mirabilis" you're not really in the best position to lecture anyone about "one-size-fits-all extrapolation from your own experience".<br /><br />You've clearly missed the point that this is a <b>personal</b> account as flagged up by the title "What the New Adventures Mean to <b>Us</b>".<br /><br />However, you are also wrong in fact. e.g. the DWM and the New Adventures for a long time did <b>not</b> contradict one another, with the magazine printing "Preludes" and the comic strip crossing over with NA stories. It even featured Benny.<br /><br />Equally the BBC did not "flog off a publicly-owned copyright" (with sub-Marxist subtext "the BBC privatised Doctor Who"). "Publicly-owned" is not the same as "free collective use", or perhaps you'd like to try treating a nuclear power station as a playground and see what happens. A similarly nasty surprise awaits you should you try to make use of "Doctor Who", "the TARDIS" or worst of all the Daleks, as the disclaimers all over your own published works loudly attest.<br /><br />Nor did the BBC ever surrender any part of its copyright; they <b>licenced</b> Virgin to produce books, keeping control of the copyright themselves, and as a bonus getting paid something for producing nothing. Waiting on the BBC to give television unto us is as likely to get you Crime Traveller as it is more Doctor Who. The New Adventures' licence granted permission to people who <i>wanted</i> to make new Doctor Who to make it at a time when the BBC themselves had no interest in or intention of doing so. And we, the public, got the possibility of enjoying new Who when otherwise there would have been none. <br /><br />And you never had to pay for the New Adventures if you didn't want to; people who didn't want Doctor Who on the telly had no choice about paying for it through their licence fee. Which of those is actually more equitable? <br /><br />(cont...)Millennium Domehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430269096817934037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22974616.post-88698524806139388902012-06-21T23:17:34.401+01:002012-06-21T23:17:34.401+01:00"At the time, everyone was on board with this..."At the time, everyone was on board with this. "<br /><br />Bollocks we were! <br /><br />"fans, DWAS, Doctor Who Magazine (and their rivals) all bought into this unifying idea: the series was – temporarily – off air, but that was okay, because the line remained unbroken."<br /><br />Actually, most fans I know accepted that it was gone forever and thus 'ours' to play with, rather than a publicly-owned copyright being flogged to Richard Branson and a set of stories contradicting the equally well-loved DWM comic (itself a publicly-owned copyright flogged to Stan Lee). Fandom's centre of gravity shifted towards our shared upbringing.<br /><br />"One particular way of disbarring the New Adventures is to say: "but people had to pay to read them".<br /><br />Yet, for me, this is actually a strength. As fans we're all a bit Obsessive Compulsive to a greater or lesser extent. The urge to "collect the set". "<br /><br />Very no. This spinoffery was merchandise, pure and simple, and while your attempts at a neuropathology of fandom is less irksome than this idea that we've all got Asberger's it's still a one-size-fits-all extrapolation from your own experience. I know a few people who were routinely buying them as market research because they had notions they wanted to turn into hard cash instead of a fanzine article (as anyone with any self-respect would have chosen instead - that's me extrapolating from me) I don't know of many people who would by one of these books simply bcause it was one of these books. Nobody who was especially enthusiastic about Kate Orman would have been seen dead with a McIntee. <br /><br />"The inclusion of "story arcs", present from the very beginning in the "Timewyrm" and "Cat's Cradle" series, the recurring supporting cast, the ability to revisit and greatly expand the mythos of the Earth Empire or Ancient Gallifrey... all this adds to the addictive jigsaw that keeps you coming back for more. <br /><br />'You' in this case not meaning me. Nor, apparently, anyone reading 'Skaro'. <br /><br />and finally <br />"the deservedly-popular Big Finish audios"<br /><br />No comment.Tathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00254989710798762675noreply@blogger.com